What I am Most Thankful For Entering 2009

Among the traditions of New Year that we all hold dear (such as the all night Psalm-singing I attended last night) are reflections of gratitude and resolutions. This morning I thought of all the things I could be thankful for: my wife, my children, my friendships. But those are all “things of earth” upon which I am not to set my mind (Colossians 3:2, ESV of course). So my first resolution of 2009 is that I will strive by the grace of God to be less thankful for my wife, kids, friends, etc. O how that will honor the Blessed Ontological Trinity!

Instead, I have determined that I am most grateful for the Great Doctrines of the Faith. Today, I want to express my gratitude for one of those: The Perspicuity of Scripture. 

Now I know that “perspicuity” is one of those big theological words the meaning of which most of my readers will be ignorant. This is one reason why most of you should never be pastors or elders in your local church. But I digress. For simplicity’s sake, let me give a quick summary definition of The Doctrine of Perspicuity (as it was taught to me by my systematics professor at a Major Reformed Seminary): “The Doctrine of the Perspicuity of Scripture is that doctrine which informs, elucidates, and (not to put too fine a point on it) enlightens us to the truth, the dictum, the (one might say) principium uber allis, which is to say, namely, that anything in Scripture that is discussed in the Westminster Confession of Faith (and/or its attendant Catechisms, both Long and Short) is therefore, by definition, indubitably, made clear and settled in its meaning for all time and all places.”

Don’t you agree that this is a most precious doctrine for which we should sing high praises? Of course you do, knowing that if you disagree I will challenge the basis of your faith. Do you have other Great Doctrines for which we should be supremely thankful as we come into a new year? If so, I may do future posts about them.

Nothing Says Christmas Like Orthodoxy

Denying that there were exactly Three Kings and that there names were Balthasar, Caspar and Melchior is the beggining of the slippery slope to the denial of inerrancy and the divine character of Scripture. Discuss

Sabbath Post #1

This is an auto-generated post. In order to maintain posting frequency to keep readers coming back while not violating any creation ordinances, the owner of this blog has prearranged for this post to appear on the sabbath. Generated by the sabbathkeepin WordPress plugin.

My Devotional Resolution for 2009

I will abandon Bible reading in my Daily Devotions for 2009 in favor of a daily reading of Calvin’s Institutes. Why? Because of this True Christian’s sage advice!

I find his reason #10 particularly compelling. “Wherever two or more of you agree as touching anything…”

One Divine Author = One Human Author

All True Christians (read “Reformed Christians”) have good reason to be alarmed in our day. From the time that Paul and Apostles drafted the Colossian Statement on Inerrancy there has never been a greater threat to Sola Scriptura than the attacks on the inerrancy and Divine character of the English Standard Version…er…Bible as we see in our day. The locus of these attacks has come from a “leading postmodernist” who dares to deny that Scripture is completely divine, and only unfortunately and accidentally associated with “humans.”

We hear much today about an “incarnational analogy” that supposedly provides the proper balance between the allegedly “equal” divine and human aspects of Scripture. The first thing I would want to point out to Mr. Leading Postmodernist is the title right on the cover of his Bible. What does it say, Sir? Go ahead, don’t be shy. Read it nice and loud so we can all hear. That’s right. It says “Holy Bible.” Not “Human Bible.” Holy. Now the Bible itself affirms for us that “there is none holy but the Lord.” Therefore, it stands to reason that the Holy Bible can only be the product of  God and not of men! 

Nevertheless, we must acknowledge that humans were involved in the writing down of the Bible. How can we reconcile that with our assertion that the Word of God is Divine above all? I believe that a proper understanding of a proper incarnational analogy is our guide.

It has been stated elsewhere that Mr. Leading Postmodernist has a defective incarnational analogy. A correct incarnational analogy (as set forth by B. B. Warfield, so enough said!) recognizes that just as God in Jesus, when he became incarnated, never sinned, so the Word of God, when placed in written form cannot have any error. Sin = human error, what could be more biblical than that?

I, however, believe we need to press the incarnational analogy of Scripture into our service even further. When God became incarnate in Christ, there were not many Christs. There was only one. Therefore, it follow logically and indubitably that there could have been only one human author of Scripture. Let me be perfectly clear about this: it is the inescapable consequence of a proper application of an incarnational analogy to Scripture that one and only one human being composed the entire thing, from Genesis to Revelation.

Now liberal reprobates will scoff at this. They will point out that we “know” that the Bible was written over some 1500 years. They will appeal to godless science to assure us that no single human being has ever lived 1500 years. But I say let Reformed dogmatics be true and all men liars! I will cast science and common sense on the burning pyres of Gehena in order to embrace the glorious truth: One Divine Author – One Human Author! Sola Scriptura – Sola Humana!

Turretin Talk: Septuagint Inspired? We Deny!

This will be the first of what I hope will be a regular feature of I Am Reformed (And So Can You!). Turretin Talk will seek to pull out the honking big jewel-encrusted golden goblets from the vast treasure chest that is my great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather Francis’s magnum opus magnifico, Elenctic Theology.

Today’s Turretin Talk comes from Volume I, Second Topic, Question XIV: Is the Septuagint version of the Old Testament authentic? To which Father Frank gave his frank appraisal: We deny! (O for those pre-post-modern days when Real Men who were Real Christians had the right male parts enough to see everything in glorious Black and White!).

Anyone have an original WCF?

Westminster Confession of Faith, that is. I don’t mean original manuscript (though I would sit through a year of Tim Keller sermons to get that!). I mean a copy with the original spelling. Back in the time of the Divines (and were there ever more heavenly Divines?) people added a lot of extra letters to words. Like old was “olde.”

So I want an original spelling WCF. Nothing left out of my confession!

One Blog to Save the One True Faith

I, Erronius Turretin, have stood apart from the blogosphere for too long. Until recently, I believed there was no need for me here. I did not have time for this Internet thing. Extensive research at monergism.com did not turn up one instance of any of the Reformers using the World Wide Web. The Westminster Confession of Faith contains zero footnotes referencing Wikipedia. But things have obviously reached a point of severe crisis, necessitating my personal intervention.

What, you ask, could be so severe that I would take time away from adding five highlight colors (one for each point of the TULIP) to my set of Bavinck’s Reformed Dogmatics to begin this blog? Brace yourself: It has come to my attention that there are some out there calling themselves “Christians” who (try to stifle your laughter) do not believe that Calvinism is Pure Christianity. Clearly, it is time for I, Erronius Turretin, last in the line of my beloved forefather Francis Turretin, to rise up and save Christianity from the non-Reformed. Can one blogger really save the true faith? Let’s say Luther’s 95 Theses were a blog post. That one blog post saved Christianity from the infernal errors of the papists. Therefore, this one blog can do it now.

Here is the foundational idea of the “I Am Reformed (And So Can You!)” blog: the Reformed Faith is the Purest Form of Christianity. Here is the foundational corollary to the foundational idea of this blog: If the Reformed Faith is the Purest Form of Christianity, then by the divinely-given process of antithesis, it clearly follows that anything not Reformed is not Christianity. I’m sure you agree.